I've only really been introduced to film noir, and i am not entirely sure what is and isnt considered Film noir, but from my limited view, it seems the graphic novel in itself would be considered...Graphic novel-noir (I know that doesnt exist, but if it did, watchmen would be a great example).

So, for those who do better understand it, could this film turn out to be film noir?

I've only really been introduced to film noir, and i am not entirely sure what is and isnt considered Film noir, but from my limited view, it seems the graphic novel in itself would be considered...Graphic novel-noir (I know that doesnt exist, but if it did, watchmen would be a great example).

So, for those who do better understand it, could this film turn out to be film noir?

Well, I'd say yes and no, mostly no. Rorschach's stuff is influenced by film noir (the hard streets, the darkness, the voice over), but I don't think it'll be anywhere near something like Sin City which is certainly noir. Hell, even hyper-noir.

But no, I don't believe this will be qualified as a film noir. Too many other influences abound.

There was a review from one of the few who saw the first 22 minutes of it, who described the beginning to the "You Quit" scene to flow like, and had the feel of a noir film. I can definitely see this, in addition to the scenes of Rorschach investigating Moloch, Moloch's flashback, and later in the film when Rorschach and Nite Owl II team back up to investigate further, to all be very noir-esque. But really, the GN is a kaleidoscope of words and images, so I definitely wouldn't bet on it being "film noir". Then again, I can't really see any label being slapped on this film. It's going to blow the mind of anyone who thinks they are going to see a "comic book movie" or an "action movie" or whatever.

Plenty of debate when it comes to anything involving noir.It's undoubtable that there are several aspects of it in the comic. The basic plot and everything involving Rorschach is pure noir. It's quite restrained, though - certainly nothing like the ultra-noir that is Sin City as mentioned by Manton.Ikke, I hope you've been introduced to the theory that noir is a mood, not a genre. As Snyder said, the film will resemble the likes of Se7en and Taxi Driver, so it will definitely have the tone. But as Manton said, there's plenty of other influences, so you can't really categorise Watchmen into a single genre. But noir, certainly, is one of them.

_________________

Dr. Brooklyn wrote:

it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.

Nearly everything Rorschach-centric in the book has a film noir flavour to it, with its dark streets, low-key lighting, chiaroscuro effects, deep focus, high angles, stark contrasts, dramatic shadows, moral and sexual ambiguity, moody atmosphere, and lots of German expressionistic visuals, with sharp angles and distortions, which is meant to give you a very unsettling, uncomfortable feel of alienation, disorientation, disintegration. It's all the anxiety, guilt, cruelty, lust, treachery, paranoia, and obsession that's just delicious!

When one says "film noir", I immediately think of the classics: Maltese Falcon, Strange on the Third Floor, M, In a Lonely Place, Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity, Public Enemy, Public Enemy, White Heat, I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang, anything Hitchcockian, and the more modern Chinatown, Body Heat, Basic Instinct, Se7en, Taxi Driver, L.A. Confidential, Naked Lunch, etc.

Rorschach's panels are a true homage film/literary noir. I think Fritz Lang would have loved Rorschach!

When one says "film noir", I immediately think of the classics: Maltese Falcon, Strange on the Third Floor, M, In a Lonely Place, Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity, Public Enemy, Public Enemy, White Heat, I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang, anything Hitchcockian, and the more modern Chinatown, Body Heat, Basic Instinct, Se7en, Taxi Driver, L.A. Confidential, Naked Lunch, etc.

Did you mean to have public enemy twice? Anyway, do you mean the one with James Cagney? I watched that recently, is that really noir? It didnt feel very...noir. Compared to the noir film i'm watching now of which the name escapes me. Almost everything about it does. And i wont see the rest till friday!

Technically film noir is an era, not a genre. So as a rule, basically anything made before the 40's is not really considered classic film noir. However, you can't deny the influence that noir films have had on subsequent crime dramas-- as a matter of fact, a later resurgence known as the neo-noir movement (essentially ushered in by the success of movies like the Godfather) continues to this day. From what we've seen, Watchmen may very well find it's own place in the category.

Nearly everything Rorschach-centric in the book has a film noir flavour to it, with its dark streets, low-key lighting, chiaroscuro effects, deep focus, high angles, stark contrasts, dramatic shadows, moral and sexual ambiguity, moody atmosphere, and lots of German expressionistic visuals, with sharp angles and distortions, which is meant to give you a very unsettling, uncomfortable feel of alienation, disorientation, disintegration. It's all the anxiety, guilt, cruelty, lust, treachery, paranoia, and obsession that's just delicious!

When one says "film noir", I immediately think of the classics: [i]Maltese Falcon, Strange on the Third Floor, M, In a Lonely Place, Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity, Public Enemy, Public Enemy, White Heat, I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang[/i

I think you and I might along really well.Also Don't forget Journey Into Fear.

_________________Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?

Technically film noir is an era, not a genre. So as a rule, basically anything made before the 40's is not really considered classic film noir. However, you can't deny the influence that noir films have had on subsequent crime dramas-- as a matter of fact, a later resurgence known as the neo-noir movement (essentially ushered in by the success of movies like the Godfather) continues to this day. From what we've seen, Watchmen may very well find it's own place in the category.

Yes. Exactly. Unfortunately it's a term that gets bandied about so much that it loses it's meaning. Film-noir is an exact definition from a very particular time. While 'Sin City' is certainly a self-consciously noir-esque film it is still neo-noir. Even the excellent 'The Good German' is an exercise in capturing film-noir in a jar and having a modern close-up look at it, applying the styles and trappings to a story set in a period immediately before film noir happened. Which is more intelligent than the usual movie trick. 'I'll have an ill-fated Sam Spade-esque detective character narrating, walking the dark streets in the rain...it'll be noir!!''Watchmen' gets away with lifting this reference, precicely because it is a reference. One among many being juxtaposed against each-other, though it is the lens through which the others are observed. A lens shaped like a pessimistic, scowling, down-n-out detective story. 'Watchmen' (the GN)is a post-modern pop-culture pastiche of colliding sensibilities and mutating genres. For the movie to be a pure film-noir, it would have to differ massively from the source material.Will 'Watchmen' be a neo-noir movie? I think so. Probably a damn good one. Possibly, hopefully, this decade's Blade Runner or Taxi Driver. Geez, Znyder. Talk about setting your sights high...

Did you mean to have public enemy twice? Anyway, do you mean the one with James Cagney? I watched that recently, is that really noir? It didnt feel very...noir. Compared to the noir film i'm watching now of which the name escapes me. Almost everything about it does. And i wont see the rest till friday!

Yes, I did Public Enemy, with the great James Cagney ("I'm a Yankee Doodle Daannnndee...!") and, sorry, I didn't mean to mention the film twice. It IS considered a film noir, but I do consider his White Heat and Angels With Dirty Faces far more superior examples of "film noir" than Public Enemy. The cinematography isn't has obvious in Public Enemy, but it drips in atmosphere and ambiguity of "film noir" -- sex, greed, violence, etc. Certain key scenes are exceptional representations of "film noir", such as the shooting of the man at the piano ("BANG!") and the wonderful ending in the rain ("I ain't so tough!").

IceKeyHunter wrote:

Technically film noir is an era, not a genre.

Technically, it's really a "style", it's a "quality". I don't like calling it an "era".

Quote:

So as a rule, basically anything made before the 40's is not really considered classic film noir.

I don't consider that true because I consider M to be a "film noir", which is Germany 1931.

t3cii wrote:

DogWithHeadSplitOpen wrote:

Se7en, Taxi Driver,

I wouldn't consider either of these noir. Personally, I kind of hate the genre.

[/quote]They're more considered "neo-noir", but they both have the essential qualities of "film noir", or perhaps even a parody of it, with the cinematography, the stylisation, the atmosphere, the subject matter, but what really heightens them up is the graphic violence. If you watch films like Public Enemy, Angels With Dirty Faces, Maltese Falcon, Babyface, the sex and violence is really surprising for that period of time, even for the Code Era.

But I'd consider film noir a period that morphed into an imitated style. It has all the trappings that are necessitated to make it a genre, and enough re-incarnations and staples to carry it through from M to the question in this thread today.

But I'd consider film noir a period that morphed into an imitated style. It has all the trappings that are necessitated to make it a genre, and enough re-incarnations and staples to carry it through from M to the question in this thread today.

Mmmm, dunno. A line of reasoning that ratifies 'Blade Runner' film noir-wise would make 'Star Wars IV' a samurai movie.